Re: DA* 16-50 SDM Updated Reliability

**LaurenOE** · 01-30-2015, 12:44 PM

Originally posted by DeadJohn

I bought a new 16-50 December 2013. The SDM had to be replaced (under warranty) September 2014. I like images from the lens, it's my most frequently used lens, and IMO it's the best combination of IQ+WR+zoom in the Pentax lineup.

Pentax USA answers to questions about SDM reliability have been evasive. I can understand why their lawyers might not want to give decisive answers, but when I ask "are their SDM issues?" and get "Japan HQ has not told us" in response, it doesn't inspire confidence.

The DA*16-50 will fail...and fixing it via the hack is a perfect solution.

I would hate to see the lens go away until a worthy replacement comes along.
The DA*16-50 and DA*50-135 are a perfect combination, and they are matched well, so it would be tough for "Laurel and Hardy" to dissapear since one of them (and sometimes the other) has flaws, but makes a perfect team.

Dave's clichés · 01-30-2015, 01:39 PM

Originally posted by Rondec

To me, the biggest thing is that color and contrast are better with the 16-50 than with other lenses out there. I know I've been a 16-50 apologist on the forums, but I really do think the results are excellent from it.

Rondec,

These are very fine shots indeed but a lot of that "lens rendering" is coming from post processing, the lens did well but your PP nailed it!

**Rondec** · 01-30-2015, 02:12 PM

Originally posted by Dave's clichés

Rondec,

These are very fine shots indeed but a lot of that "lens rendering" is coming from post processing, the lens did well but your PP nailed it!

Maybe so, but my experience is that if the colors and contrast aren't there, it is really tough to post process an image into a good photo. In these cases, the lens had nice contrast, good detail, and the colors were very close to what I saw each day.

**kiwi_jono** · 01-30-2015, 02:18 PM

I think Ricoh Pentax is doing a great job at the moment but I can't figure out why the DA*16-50 is still sold as a SDM (if not replaced by an upgraded lens). Surely they could have released it with SDC or such.

Maybe they think most people will buy these things without first reading forums / user reviews? Surely most people would?
I know this issue stopped me buying this lens (got close a couple of times) so there must be a large number of people put off around the world.

**LaurenOE** · 01-30-2015, 02:21 PM

Originally posted by kiwi_jono

I think Ricoh Pentax is doing a great job at the moment but I can't figure out why the DA*16-50 is still sold as a SDM (if not replaced by an upgraded lens). Surely they could have released it with SDC or such.

Maybe they think most people will buy these things without first reading forums / user reviews? Surely most people would?
I know this issue stopped me buying this lens (got close a couple of times) so there must be a large number of people put off around the world.

Seriously, buy the lens, convert it immediately, then, you will never have it "fail".

Dave's clichés · 01-30-2015, 02:26 PM

Originally posted by Rondec

Maybe so, but my experience is that if the colors and contrast aren't there, it is really tough to post process an image into a good photo. In these cases, the lens had nice contrast, good detail, and the colors were very close to what I saw each day.

I agree, however the Tamron equals or beats it for a lot less money and without the SDM issues, and I found it's flare resistances a little better, (I had the 16-50 complete with motor grief) but hey that third shot is a real winner!

Sandy Hancock · 01-30-2015, 03:13 PM

I'm another apologist, if that's what you want to call it. I have had two DA*16-50's (both bought for around $750) and both suffered SDM failures. One was repaired free of charge by C.R. Kennedy Australia despite my having bought it second hand from Canada, the other (bought new from B&H during a black Friday sale) I converted to screw drive.

The former I sold, and the screwy is still my most used event lens.

**wizofoz** · 01-30-2015, 03:53 PM

Another vote of confidence for the DA* 16-50. The sdm in mine has never failed, I have had the lens for at least 3 years or more. I bought a Tamron equivalent 2nd hand out of curiosity to compare with the Pentax and to me it is not a fair fight. The tammy feels cheap and plastic, the colours are not as punchy and the contrast is far better in the Pentax lens. I keep reading that the Tamron is an equal or better lens, in my experience this statement is false. The only advantage the Tamron lens has over the Pentax is price, and the price difference is easily seen in the build quality differences and lack of WR.

Stoogie · 01-30-2015, 04:07 PM

I've had my 16-50 for about six months now, and it's still going strong. I used to have the Tamron, which was admittedly a little sharper, but the 16-50 is better in literally (almost) every other way. Colors, contrast, build quality, focusing accuracy, not to mention the WR. I was a little dismayed the first time I snapped an image with it and zoomed in to 100% in that I couldn't see pores and tiny hairs as clearly as I could with the Tamron, but I've since come to realize that there's a heck of a lot more to image quality than straight sharpness.

candgpics · 01-30-2015, 05:12 PM

Hi:

Thank you all for the replies. The replies lead me to believe problems still remain--and perhaps this is an SDM issue and/or how it is implemented in the DA* 16-50. Perhaps the particular design of the lens is what is so problematic.

I had the DA* 50-135 (no SDM problem) and sold it to get the DA* 60-250, and later bought and still have the Sigma 70-200 2.8. The 60-250 had the SDM fail, one month before the warranty expired.

I have the DA* 300 and that is just a wonderful lens, though I do not often use it. So far, no SDM issue.

And, I have the DA* 55 and it squeaks when focusing, but it has sounded like this for a couple of years--so, I am hopeful. It is probably one of my most used lenses.

I really liked how the 16-50 rendered and I guess I could buy it and then convert it to screw drive. It just seems quite odd to buy a lens, at a premium price--though it has moderated lately, and then disable a major feature of the lens (at least the focusing mechanism).

As suggested, I will see how the next couple of months play out and also look for reviews on the new 16-85, though, that is a lens with a somewhat different purpose.

Thank you again for your thoughts!!!

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
DA star 16-50 SDM	polur101	Pentax DSLR Discussion	14	09-09-2013 11:20 PM
DA*16-50 SDM and MF failure???	Phii Mii	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	8	07-06-2013 09:33 AM
Failing SDM? Re: 16-50 DA*	Kryscendo	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	6	07-09-2012 12:01 PM
Updated version of DA*16-50 coming?	elho_cid	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	40	06-14-2012 10:55 AM
Lens offer from Amazon: DA* 50-135 SDM & DA* 16-50 SDM	f8	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	4	03-25-2008 04:45 AM

01-30-2015, 12:44 PM	#16
LaurenOE Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Back in Florida, but worldwide gigs! Photos: Albums Posts: 3,690	Originally posted by DeadJohn I bought a new 16-50 December 2013. The SDM had to be replaced (under warranty) September 2014. I like images from the lens, it's my most frequently used lens, and IMO it's the best combination of IQ+WR+zoom in the Pentax lineup. Pentax USA answers to questions about SDM reliability have been evasive. I can understand why their lawyers might not want to give decisive answers, but when I ask "are their SDM issues?" and get "Japan HQ has not told us" in response, it doesn't inspire confidence. The DA16-50 will fail...and fixing it via the hack is a perfect solution. I would hate to see the lens go away until a worthy replacement comes along. The DA16-50 and DA*50-135 are a perfect combination, and they are matched well, so it would be tough for "Laurel and Hardy" to dissapear since one of them (and sometimes the other) has flaws, but makes a perfect team.

01-30-2015, 01:39 PM	#17
Dave's clichés Forum Member Join Date: Jan 2014 Posts: 98	Originally posted by Rondec To me, the biggest thing is that color and contrast are better with the 16-50 than with other lenses out there. I know I've been a 16-50 apologist on the forums, but I really do think the results are excellent from it. Rondec, These are very fine shots indeed but a lot of that "lens rendering" is coming from post processing, the lens did well but your PP nailed it!

01-30-2015, 02:12 PM	#18
Rondec Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Gladys, Virginia Photos: Gallery Posts: 27,663	Originally posted by Dave's clichés Rondec, These are very fine shots indeed but a lot of that "lens rendering" is coming from post processing, the lens did well but your PP nailed it! Maybe so, but my experience is that if the colors and contrast aren't there, it is really tough to post process an image into a good photo. In these cases, the lens had nice contrast, good detail, and the colors were very close to what I saw each day.

01-30-2015, 02:18 PM	#19
kiwi_jono Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Christchurch, New Zealand Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,437	I think Ricoh Pentax is doing a great job at the moment but I can't figure out why the DA*16-50 is still sold as a SDM (if not replaced by an upgraded lens). Surely they could have released it with SDC or such. Maybe they think most people will buy these things without first reading forums / user reviews? Surely most people would? I know this issue stopped me buying this lens (got close a couple of times) so there must be a large number of people put off around the world.

01-30-2015, 02:21 PM	#20
LaurenOE Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Back in Florida, but worldwide gigs! Photos: Albums Posts: 3,690	Originally posted by kiwi_jono I think Ricoh Pentax is doing a great job at the moment but I can't figure out why the DA*16-50 is still sold as a SDM (if not replaced by an upgraded lens). Surely they could have released it with SDC or such. Maybe they think most people will buy these things without first reading forums / user reviews? Surely most people would? I know this issue stopped me buying this lens (got close a couple of times) so there must be a large number of people put off around the world. Seriously, buy the lens, convert it immediately, then, you will never have it "fail".

01-30-2015, 02:26 PM	#21
Dave's clichés Forum Member Join Date: Jan 2014 Posts: 98	Originally posted by Rondec Maybe so, but my experience is that if the colors and contrast aren't there, it is really tough to post process an image into a good photo. In these cases, the lens had nice contrast, good detail, and the colors were very close to what I saw each day. I agree, however the Tamron equals or beats it for a lot less money and without the SDM issues, and I found it's flare resistances a little better, (I had the 16-50 complete with motor grief) but hey that third shot is a real winner!

01-30-2015, 03:13 PM	#22
Sandy Hancock Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Adelaide Hills, South Australia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 11,275	I'm another apologist, if that's what you want to call it. I have had two DA*16-50's (both bought for around $750) and both suffered SDM failures. One was repaired free of charge by C.R. Kennedy Australia despite my having bought it second hand from Canada, the other (bought new from B&H during a black Friday sale) I converted to screw drive. The former I sold, and the screwy is still my most used event lens.

01-30-2015, 03:53 PM	#23
wizofoz Site Supporter Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Melbourne, Outer east. Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,695	Another vote of confidence for the DA* 16-50. The sdm in mine has never failed, I have had the lens for at least 3 years or more. I bought a Tamron equivalent 2nd hand out of curiosity to compare with the Pentax and to me it is not a fair fight. The tammy feels cheap and plastic, the colours are not as punchy and the contrast is far better in the Pentax lens. I keep reading that the Tamron is an equal or better lens, in my experience this statement is false. The only advantage the Tamron lens has over the Pentax is price, and the price difference is easily seen in the build quality differences and lack of WR.

01-30-2015, 04:07 PM	#24
Stoogie Senior Member Join Date: May 2012 Location: Mission, B.C. Photos: Albums Posts: 166	I've had my 16-50 for about six months now, and it's still going strong. I used to have the Tamron, which was admittedly a little sharper, but the 16-50 is better in literally (almost) every other way. Colors, contrast, build quality, focusing accuracy, not to mention the WR. I was a little dismayed the first time I snapped an image with it and zoomed in to 100% in that I couldn't see pores and tiny hairs as clearly as I could with the Tamron, but I've since come to realize that there's a heck of a lot more to image quality than straight sharpness.

01-30-2015, 05:12 PM	#25
candgpics Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Maine, USA Posts: 394 Original Poster	Hi: Thank you all for the replies. The replies lead me to believe problems still remain--and perhaps this is an SDM issue and/or how it is implemented in the DA* 16-50. Perhaps the particular design of the lens is what is so problematic. I had the DA* 50-135 (no SDM problem) and sold it to get the DA* 60-250, and later bought and still have the Sigma 70-200 2.8. The 60-250 had the SDM fail, one month before the warranty expired. I have the DA* 300 and that is just a wonderful lens, though I do not often use it. So far, no SDM issue. And, I have the DA* 55 and it squeaks when focusing, but it has sounded like this for a couple of years--so, I am hopeful. It is probably one of my most used lenses. I really liked how the 16-50 rendered and I guess I could buy it and then convert it to screw drive. It just seems quite odd to buy a lens, at a premium price--though it has moderated lately, and then disable a major feature of the lens (at least the focusing mechanism). As suggested, I will see how the next couple of months play out and also look for reviews on the new 16-85, though, that is a lens with a somewhat different purpose. Thank you again for your thoughts!!!